Solving Notation Confusion in Law's Combustion Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saladsamurai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion Notation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation used in a combustion physics text by Law, specifically regarding the representation of chemical reactions and the meaning of certain terms such as "concentration" and "stoichiometric coefficients." Participants explore the implications of this notation for understanding chemical reactions, particularly in the context of reactants and products.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the term "concentration" refers to relative composition or mole fraction, seeking clarification on the notation used in the reaction.
  • Another participant suggests that the notation should distinguish between reactants and products, proposing a revised representation of the reaction.
  • There is a contention regarding the interpretation of the indices in the summation notation, with one participant expressing confusion about whether they represent the same molecules or different sets of molecules.
  • Some participants assert that the coefficients are stoichiometric coefficients, not concentrations or mole fractions, and represent molar ratios in the reaction.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the clarity of the original text's notation, suggesting it may be poorly worded.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the notation may be confusing and potentially poorly worded, but there is no consensus on the implications of this notation or its correctness. Multiple interpretations of the notation remain under discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the ambiguity in the use of terms and notation in chemical reactions, particularly regarding the distinction between reactants and products and the interpretation of coefficients. There are unresolved questions about the intended meaning of "concentration" in this context.

Saladsamurai
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
7
I am reading through a combustion physics text by Law and I am a little confused by this notation for a reaction. He says:

Chung K. Law said:
Consider a chemical reaction given by

<br /> \sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i&#039;M_i\leftrightharpoons\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i&#039;&#039;M_i<br />

where Mi is the chemical symbol for the ith species and \nu_i the corresponding molar concentration coefficient ...

My questions:

1) In this sense, is the "concentration" vi the same as the relative composition? That is, is it simply the "mole fraction?"

2) Both of the summands in the reactants and products run from i = 1 to N. I do not understand this. It seems that this would not allow for the formation of different molecules in the products. That is, it assumes that the reactants and the products are identical. But in the case of a simple reaction like CO + \frac{1}{2}O_2 \leftrightharpoons CO_2 it is clear that there are 1) a different number of products than reactants and 2) the subscript "1" in the reactants is not representative of the same molecule as "1" in the products.Is it possible that this reaction is being written "atom wise" (I have never heard of this) instead of as molecules? Or is it that the indices on the left hand side and those on the right hand side are completely independent? That is, the set of "N" molecules in the reactants is a completely different set than the "N" molecules in the products?
 
Last edited:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
I'll address your second question first. It's probably more correct to write the equation as:
\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i\prime R_i\leftrightharpoons\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i\prime\prime P_i
With R representing the reactants and P representing the products.

For your first question, the vi do not represent concentrations nor do they represent mole fractions. They are most correctly referred to as stoichiometric coefficients and simply represent the molar ratios of reactants required and products created by the reaction. In your example of CO + 1/2 O2 --> CO2, the vi are 1, 1/2, and 1.
 
Last edited:
Ygggdrasil said:
I'll address your second question first. It's probably more correct to write the equation as:
\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i&#039; R_i \leftrightharpoons \sum_{i=1}^ N \nu_i&#039;&#039; P_i
With R representing the reactants and P representing the products.

For your first question, the vi do not represent concentrations nor do they represent mole fractions. They are most correctly referred to as stoichiometric coefficients and simply represent the molar ratios of reactants required and products created by the reaction. In your example of CO + 1/2 O2 --> CO2, the vi are 1, 1/2, and 1.

Hmmm...You see, that is what I am used to in my other texts; however, I have quoted him word for word. He distinctly uses the word "concentrations." And he has made no distinction that the different M's are "R" and "P" as you have. I'll assume that it is just poor notation, but surely the use of the word "concentrations" was intentional (?).

Thanks,
Casey
 
I'd say it's probably all just poor notation and wording.
 
I guess I can live with that. Thanks for your response. :smile:

~Casey
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K